Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Exclusive – The Origins of Savilisation – Part Two.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on April 30, 2014

When Susan returned to Duncroft, she gave the records to Ms Jones, the head mistress. She found herself closely questioned about this meeting with a celebrity from the music business – she had, after all, had some previous experience of drugs, and this was not unknown in the world of nightclubs.

She replied quite truthfully that he claimed to neither drink nor take drugs. Her Mother and Father had made enquires amongst the various policemen who frequented Ed’s Barn and found that this was believed to be true – Savile was eccentric, but not ‘trouble’.

Susan’s Mother was happy for the friendship to continue.

Susan’s Mother had stayed in contact with Savile, and so it came about that Susan and her Mother were invited to the Shepherd’s Bush theatre to see one of the Clunk-Click programmes being made during another home leave. They went together and sat in the 2nd row, accompanied by a group of Savile’s friends, his brother Johnny Savile and his sister-in-law. Later that night, Savile introduced Susan and her Mother to his ‘boss’ – a man she says was known as either ‘The Doc’ or ‘The Prof’ – though both are well known Northern terms for anyone you accept as being ‘superior’ to you, so this may not be an accurate nickname.

Not long after this evening, Susan’s Mother arranged for Savile to visit her daughter at Duncroft – this was the first time he had ever been there – not ‘parachuted in’ as a result of his celebrity, as the media would have you believe, but visiting because he had taken a kindly interest in a girl who’s parents he had now become friends with. A ‘daughter’ he had always behaved impeccably towards despite temptation being placed squarely in his path by this rebellious teenager.

The staff at Duncroft were dubious; single men were not allowed to visit girls there. Accordingly, the visit was only allowed to take place under supervision – in the Head Mistress’s study.

Knowing the place as well as I do, I can imagine the scene. Gossip would have been rife, heads would have been peering round corners and hanging over balconies. Not only would there have been intense interest in this visiting celebrity (even a new gardener was enough to get us excited!) but he was coming to see one of the youngest, at 15, of the current girls, not one of the ‘old hands’ now nearing 18. Jealousy would have been flowing through the air like ectoplasm at an exorcism. As with any semi-prison establishment, there is an established pecking order, and the new girl is not supposed to get all the perks…

Worse, Susan had been invited to stand in the entrance hall along with the staff to formally introduce this gilded creature to the head mistress. Why, she was being treated as though she was something special – just who did she think she was? It got worse, one of the ‘old hands’ (I do have the name, but since she now claims to be a victim, I am not free to publish it) was instructed to serve tea – including to Susan, in a cup and saucer, no less…..I can imagine what was being said in the back corridors…

Savile had by this time established that Duncroft was then under the auspices of MIND, the mental health charity. He knew HRH Princess Alexandra through his charity work, and so arranged for himself to arrive during her formal visit to Duncroft to meet Lady Norman.

Ms Jones, for reasons best known to her, arranged for Susan to have a private lesson in etiquette and curtsying so that she could ‘present her friend’ to Lady Norman and Princess Alexandra. 1973 was still a relatively formal time, so this was no doubt considered good manners at a minimum – but you can imagine how Susan was being viewed by the other Duncroft girls. ‘Stuck up’ or ‘posh bitch’ probably qualified as compliments by comparison to the other comments. Especially when Savile mocked another girl curtsying to Princess Alexandra by hiding behind her long flared skirt – again, I cannot mention the name for legal reasons.

Sometime later, Savile arrived on a Sunday afternoon, and asked if he could take Susan out to tea. No, he couldn’t! Rules were rules. Eventually four of the oldest girls were allowed to go into Staines with Savile and Susan – and a member of staff as chaperone. Savile, being a true Yorkshireman, took them to the giddy excitement of the ABC cafe…they had a cup of tea in the virtually deserted Sunday afternoon atmosphere of a large working man’s cafe. The staff never left their side. No trip in a Rolls Royce, sorry to disappoint – they walked there and back – though Susan did manage to hold his hand fleetingly – another girl (name withheld) took possession of his other hand…

The girls had heard of Susan’s trip to the filming of Clunk-click, and they wanted to go too. Ms Jones cautiously agreed and with another member of staff travelled there in advance to inspect the venue. Susan and four other girls went there by mini-bus with Janet Theobald, the youngest member of staff, on a Thursday evening in preparation for the Saturday night broadcast.

Whilst in the theatre, still accompanied by the staff, of all the girls, Susan was the one who managed to collide with Freddie Starr in the corridor. It would have been better for her position in the ‘pecking order’ had it been one of the other girls who met him and informed him that they were there with Jimmy Savile and why didn’t he join them in the dressing room? She was becoming the unwilling recipient of a lot of jealous talk.

In the event, when they all walked out onto the stage, Freddie stuck close to Susan and they sat together. A BBC female employee handed out 50p coins to everybody and took all their names. On leaving the show, Susan witnessed Freddie Starr winking at one of the girls (name withheld) and looking over his shoulder at Savile’s large glasses lying on the side.

On leaving the studio, Savile told Susan that his glasses were missing…

Still, ever the generous Yorkshireman, Savile took the girls and the staff to – ooh, the excitement, how their heads must have been turned! – the Shepherd’s Bush Doughnut restaurant, where the 50p coins were collected up again to pay for the doughnuts…

That would be Roger Ordish, who Jim christened as ‘Doctor Magic’. He was a regulation BBC Producer, a bit like Alistair Scott-Johnson must have been, back in the day I would guess. Well educated, well-spoken and a thoroughly decent sort of chap.

I used to know Roger and his partner Sue back in those days – we’ve long since drifted apart. You are absolutely right in your assessment of him, and for what it’s worth, I never heard any rumours about “bad” behaviour with regards to Jimmy Savile. Not even of the “He’d better watch out, some hack will catch him at it and then it’s game over” sort of rumours.

People seem to forget how the media of the time, like the News of the World (then often called the rapist’s digest), used to feast on the slightest of sexual scandals. Nothing they used to like better, than a celeb with an underage groupie, or a vicar caught with the choirboys.

I certainly haven’t forgotten yet all Britain’s newspapers seem to have a collective amnesia about the public’s voracious appetite for celebrity gossip, especially anything salacious and seem to have forgotten that every British newspaper was in fierce competition to bring down any celebrity, public figure, town mayor, vicar or politician. The many times I had contact with reporters I was always being asked to keep an eye out for errant celebs and they money paid in those days was big bikkies just for a tip. The manner in which everyone seems to have accepted the rewriting of history is a scandal.

Isn’t it odd how the truth can stare you in the face sometimes and yet you don’t see it? Now that you’ve said that I’ve realised – the media were never in the business of reporting truth or news – as you say, they were in hot competition to ‘bring down some establishment figure’. Almost like prize fighters, sent out to bop the big man on the nose on behalf of the general public…. When you look at it like that, so much makes sense.

Seldom their own though? Least ways, not openly, for the general public. Always thought that even if 10% of PE’s Street of Shame column was true, we were in seriously deep doo doo

And as for anyone who thought to hire all those boys and girls now performing at the phone hacking show trial? How could anyone manage to assemble any group of professionally experienced news gatherers who are reported as seemingly professing such levels of general inattention to what they did, an almost unworldly lack of knowledge of the law and governance, and what otherwise sounds as if it was a level of incompetence to which most of the rest of us could not but fail to aspire, that one wonders if they might have had reminders pinned to the inside of their front doors asking, prior to their venturing out as novitiates each day into the big evil outdoors, ‘Have you wiped your bottom?’

Still, they all seem to try hard each day, but for most of them, even 30 pieces of silver would be way beyond their pay grade

I have just been reading some of the comments received after the 1st instalment, I expected to read some “nasty” to say the least comments on Susans story. The one I found the most offensive was about her Fathers decision to allow Susan to go to visit Jimmy. We both gave it much thought, to say the least in allowing her to go, but having met him I thought the risk was worth while. We were at our wits end to know where to go next with Susan, we were desperate!! If Jimmy could do her any good by talking some sense into her then the visit was worthwhile, we were worried all the time she was away..

Susan, I am sure would not be the person she is today, my Husband had reached the stage “she is your daughter” you sort it out – I tried my best, but the break through came with meeting Jimmy. I can not thank him enough. She is daughter to be proud of, I only wish her Father was alive to know her now. He and she were very close, he was a “thinker”, I jump in with quick decisions they both did a lot of talking, but this episode in her life was a traumatic episode in his life.

I found the comment that “it was for the money, fame, lifestyle” that she was allowed to go to meet him that Sunday, it is so far from the truth, I know that in future episodes this will come out.

A lot of what I have read has given me unhappy thoughts, I had no idea about half of the things she has written about were happening, I suppose this applies to a lot of parents, when they are away from us anything can be happening, I suppose our lifestyle was very different from the “drugs, loud music etc. etc”. Our lifestyle was, as my husband was church organist, it revolved around choir practises, church services, weddings and funerals and at home classical music and I was in Operatic an group, Susan learnt to play the piano by having the notes pencilled on the keys and learnt in a fashion Bach, not the Farmyard series.

I hope you will excuse this rambling but I just felt I had to say something, to say the least I am a bit upset, but if Jimmys name can be partly cleared, so be it.

@Sheila, Susan’s Mom; look at this way, the ‘nasty’ comments obviously believe your account! Infact I’d go as far as to say that the ‘warts’ in regard of your parenting skills are exactly the details that give the account it’s seal of credibility. The bits the critics have latched onto are the bits that scream T R U T H in capital letters. No one reading it can doubt that it is as truthful an account as one can find at this distance in time. If the phrase ‘she fell in with a bad crowd’ had appeared I , for one, would have stopped reading.

and yes, before anyone picks me up on it, I know the phrase ‘wrong crowd’ did infact appear but as racoonesque commentary and not in the sense I meant it -the ‘we were perfect parents , she just fell in with…’ sense!

Wonderful words Anna. I read about the 50p I think in Moor Larkin’s blog. You can see how one thing goes on to another and some parental differences between now and the sixties. The paedophile word was just a faint whisper then. Not chucked about the way it is now. Also the handy use of pervert or perv which is also applied to JS. Many younger people now live in the immediate present. They are not interested in how folk thought or lived all those years ago. You can see it clearly in quizzes on the tele. They have no idea about even quite recent events. Some of these younger people are lawyers, feminist ones perhaps, and everything has to be judged in current skewed terms and, of course, recently tweaked laws applied. They are not into social history, not interested! They could maybe go on about Victorian values but they do not understand about the white heat of the sixties pop music storm and all it’s ramifications for youngsters. The LSD bit is interesting. A girl of 15 with this drug and JS reaction to it. His alleged reaction to her revealed age is significant. Most men OF ANY AGE fancy younger women and it is wise for them now to find out just how old before any serious stuff occurs. How do they do that? False allegations for gain or other reasons are now on the cards for all men, gay and straight or unless something is done to keep this in check.

I may be wrong about this, but it’s my impression that the “paedophile” word was introduced into the popular lexicon by the “Paedophile” activists of the Paedophile Information Exchange, who seeem to have picked it, ironically, as a more neutral sounding “scientific” word back then than pederast, kiddie fiddler, pervert, etc. I don’t think anyone used the word beyond a few psychologists until then.

The term paedophilia was used by the Viennese psychiatrist Krafft-Ebing in Psychopathia Sexualis [1886], but was always more of a medical term than in common usage.

The Who’s rock opera Tommy has a song called Fiddle About and concerns the exploits of “your wicked Uncle Ernie”, but didn’t cause all that much of a furore back in the 60’s probably due to the fact that the majority of the UK population at that time had been fiddled with by survivors or veterans of World War I, and it was just regarded as a regrettable part of life

It certainly had crossed my mind that comments were fretting about the possibility that this young woman might be involved with [gulp] sex….. but none of the comments seemed at all baffled as to how a girl of 15 had come into possession of LSD and was using it.

If anything has changed British society in the last half century it must be drugs. I grew up on a new housing estate in the Sixties that as a child I found to be idyllic. Within ten years of us moving again (when I was 10) that Estate was reported in the ‘papers as a corrosive social mess. My youngest brother, who was 10 years younger than me would routinely tell me of the ‘pushers’,’ dealers’ and ‘enforcers’ he was aware of on the estate we had moved to, and he still lived on, whilst I had become one of those who had followed Norman Tebbit’s advice.

Yes, those parents who had to face the first wave of freely available drugs had no where to turn to. Even Duncroft was initially unprepared for the first wave of girls returning from home leave ‘off their skulls’ – hence the ‘soft room’, now sinisterly referred to as a ‘padded cell’- but what were the staff supposed to do with girls returning under the influence?

Anna, this is more riveting than the vacuous lamestream media accounts with all their nasty “No smoke without fire” sensationalism and no actual evidence. This is Cinéma vérité and far more engaging. A hypocrisy free zone and a window into the real past.

This is amazing Anna, I just can’t believe the way the MSM are ignoring all evidence to the contrary where JS is concerned. I wonder how his reputation can ever be restored as I can’t see them backing down any time soon. Maybe one of them will decide to break the true story, I live in hope.

It seems to me there is far more real evidence against Cyril Smith, I remember stories about him going back to the 70s but he is not getting the same vilification that JS did, wonder why? Re Susan and drugs, I remember when they first became popular, I was about 17 and no parents had a clue about them except through the hysteria of films like ‘Reefer Madness’ of course we all knew it was nonsense since most had tried it.

Glad that Sheila explained her reasoning clearly, makes sense to me, given that she did speak with Jimmy, and also made inquiries about his character before allowing Susan to visit him.

Of course, as an ex-Duncroftian, who has been exposed to extraordinary abuse and harassment from these so-called victims (as has Anna, as well as others that gainsay their lies) the rage and jealousy must have been palpable from the other girls when Jimmy came calling, let alone giving Susan tea in a cup and saucer! I understand that by that time the girls were not allowed to have china or real cutlery anywhere near them, though when I was there we did, because I did a LOT of washing up after meals, and on one occasion dropped about thirty plates by accident! Funny how you don’t forget that sort of thing. And yes, I bet she was called cruel names and treated poorly by the others as well – they still do that, as anyone on Twitter can attest. It took courage to step up and tell her truth now, and I hope the authorities will pay mind to it. It could turn this whole farce smartly on its ear.

Btw, when I was at Duncroft, drugs were already in the picture, via uppers. Quite common among teens in those days, some of whom were simply able to pinch them from Mum’s medicine cabinet, and others who knew the streets of London well. However, I don’t think anyone brought pills back to Duncroft after home visits, or came back high. The 70s crowd, as Susan herself states and others noted on the Careleavers site, were into acid, and allegedly were tripping when they returned. This would be the case with “Charlotte” who has accused Jimmy of groping her in a caravan, and being dragged out by the staff when she protested, and locked in the ‘padded cell.’ The facts are a little different. “Charlotte” returned from a home visit obviously disoriented and under the influence. For her own protection, she was confined to the ‘soft room’ for the night, with a staff member posted outside the door.

I just wonder if some of these accusations are the result of acid and nothing more.

It took courage to step up and tell her truth now, and I hope the authorities will pay mind to it. It could turn this whole farce smartly on its ear.

That was precisely my first reaction to reading these mind blowing revelations, and one presumes that Susan will testify at the impending civil libel case involving Starr vs Old Girls.

However one should remember that the UK press does not, or is not allowed to, report on such cases in any detail. Even blogs like the Barrister Blog or the UK Criminal Law Blog often don’t have all the info about important trials. The way the UK press works, it is entirely possible that Susan’s testimony (if she testifies) could be summarized as “I was only 15 when paedophile Jimmy Savile exposed himself to me at Broadmoor. He then followed me to Duncroft where he met other girls… and never mind the more nuanced interpretation that readers of this blog might prefer.

At a witch burning the most important motifying factor is the desire to avoid at all costs being tarred with the same brush as the scapegoat (sorry for mixing a few metaphors). Hence the vast majority of Brits are not interested in the technicalities of whether Savile ever had sex with someone who had not turned 16 on the day the sex took place. No, just the fact that he liked dolly-birds half his age or less is enough to condemn him as a paedophile at heart, so Susan’s story, although ostensibly exculpatory in a strictly legal sense, could just be more faggots (firewood, what WERE you thinking?) thrown onto the fire.

At the risk of being offensive- and I don’t mean it that way- I have to say, as a reader, one note of caution. I am a believer in sceptical epistemologies- science, the court system, etc- which naturally reject unsupported testimony. The whole paedo-mess is a conflation of “mere testimony”. As such, while I find this fascinating, I do also find myself thinking that I could not honestly say that this “debunks” anything, since all I have is something I’ve read on a blog; and if I am sceptical of the memories of abuse claimants from this ancient period, I must in all honesty apply the same scepticism to this testimony.

I am not at all implying falsehood, or trying to slander anybody. But like a good courtroom, I feel it is right to be equally sceptical of everyone- the defendant, the victim, the witnesses, the police, etc. If I say, “well, somebody who I have no knowledge of on the internet called Susan says this, so it must be true”, I’m no different to the mob accepting every word Mark John-Thomas and the Duncroft Cabal come out with.

I entirely agree with you IanB. The value of Susan’s recollections is that she was ‘there at the same time’, did introduce him to Duncroft (something those of us who were there, already knew)- and yes, it is at odds with the story as portrayed in the media – but that is how evidence should be – for and against. What has happened so far is that the media are only interested in publishing the case for the prosecution. Not even publishing the case for the prosecution, they claim to ‘know’ the facts, no need to tell us, and have pronounced him guilty.

Edited to add: I have to say, knowing those staff that she names, her version of events rings far more true to life than the claims I have seen around such as ‘Ms Jones was pimping us out to celebrities’. This version is utterly boring, mundane, and that describes Duncroft to a ‘T’….Wet Sunday afternoons and the chance to walk chaperoned through Staines with someone semi-famous to the ABC cafe? That would have been talked about for years!!!!

“What has happened so far is that the media are only interested in publishing the case for the prosecution. Not even publishing the case for the prosecution, they claim to ‘know’ the facts, no need to tell us, and have pronounced him guilty.”

In this respect the press is just presenting the findings of the Yewtree Report verbatim. What is disgraceful is that the press asked no questions about the methodology of the Yewtree Report, especially why all the alleged evidence is being held in secret.

I suppose the answer to this may be that the whole matter is still sub judice and that the witness affidavits plus associated verbal testimony form part of the body of evidence that may be presented in open court at some time in the future as part of a claim for compensation. From the point of view of a legal team defending the interests of the Savile estate, it might be a good thing if the details of the allegations are not “out there”, because they would want to look for contradictions.

@Ian B A little fact-checking would reveal that the folks who the newspapers told us were 14 in 1974 were in fact born in 1958. Read the CPS “Levit report” and you will realise that one of them was in fact 17. The CPS know the basic facts of other stories are false and have condoned the deceit by their complete inaction. There’s a lot moor than just testimony in my Blog, as I know you know, but it’s worth repeating for anyobne looking in from the Tabloid world.

Ian – I’ve known about Susan and her role in bringing Savile to Duncroft for at least two years, although not in this much detail. This was common knowledge at Careleavers, though Susan herself did not participate in discussions over there that I am aware of. And this was also before the Exposure rubbish, Karin Ward and all of it. Nowadays, where would you expect to discover this sort of information?? In the MSM?? Don’t make me laugh! Like it or not, this is what happened.

I’ve personally recently received communications from another Duncroft woman, who is refusing to participate in the Starr v. Ward libel case, although she has been approached by counsel for Ward to give testimony that he touched her inappropriately. This Duncroft woman stated in her response to counsel that she did not see anything of the sort. Some of them are sick to death of it, and would like to put it behind them, but not to the extent that they are going to permit lies to continue to proliferate about Savile and Others.

Sally, I wasn’t áttacking Susan’s integrity or anyone else’s, and I did my best to express that in my comment. I was describing my position as a “bystander”. I’ve commented enough here that my intense scepticism regarding the MSM narrative ought to be clear

I’m looking forward to the rest of the articles, and I certianly wouldn’t want to put Susan or Anna off continuing by anything I write. I was just saying that since I wasn’t there, don’t know any of these people, and thus as that kind of outsider, to be epistemologically consistent I cannot just say “this is the objective truth”, especially after spending the past year or more ranting about the unreliability of human memory, etc.

I think you are making an excellent point. For many of us reading this blog these new revelations are stunning, seem completely credible, and turn the whole thing on its head, particularly as regards to the allegations about Starr, but many other people, perhaps the majority, who believe that no one would ever lie about sexual abuse because they themselves have never lied about it and never would, would just see this as a contradictory blog opinion of no particular value from a questionable source (Old Duncroftia).

Ian – sorry to sound peevish! And yes, we’ve all had a go at the infallibility of human memory here and there! However, having been at Duncroft myself, my memories are pretty clear even now. Susan would not have forgotten these incidents, I don’t think, and her recounting of walking to the ABC Cafe in the rain, escorted by staff, is much more reminiscent of the way Duncroft was run than the lurid nonsense that the MSM – Daily Mail in particular – were proliferating. The staff that were there in my day were still there during this Savile period, and unless they all became completely different people, which I very much doubt, none of this has ever made much sense to me. Once Bebe Roberts started with her lies, then the whole thing went sideways for me. To this day, the Daily Mail have never admitted that the Bebe Roberts story was an utter and complete fabrication.

One of the things that has happened to me over years of following this panic as it has developed is a “nose” for fabrication; the particular lurid tales that are told follow certain narrative “conventions” and are often clearly the kind of stories you’d find in fiction. So you can guess which side I am enormously inclined to believe. But unlike you, Anna et al, I’ve never been at Duncroft, or in anywhere like Duncroft, or have any personal experience at all to fall back on. I’m just some bloke on the internet, so I (perhaps unnecessarily) wanted to stand back and say that. I have considerable experience of the entertainment industry from around 1980 onwards, but sadly nobody during that period invited me into the Paedophile Conspiracy, nor did I encounter Jimmy Savile’s awesome power to control reality, so that’s not much help.

Just as an aside, my “nose” sniffed out Haut La Garenne as nonsense the day the story broke. But I was not the least surprised when Savile was linked with that too.

Nothing to do with Savile, but interesting that there is a new story just now that Gerry Adams (parliamentarian and non-member of Provisional IRA) has just been arrested for a historic murder, based solely on the testimony of questionable reliability of one woman now dead. The CPS history department is on a roll. (I have no particular opinion of the guilt or innocence of Adams in this matter or other crimes.)

Without wishing to be in any way censorious, surely that’s not one for this forum? Certainly at a point where we are trying to establish the truth of something else entirely, conflating that with some sideshow where nothing stated in the comment made matches up with anything else that I, for one, can readily find out reported about that matter, is likely to be muddling and unhelpful

Yes, it is a bit of a stretch, but the article is entitled ‘The Origins of Savilisation’ and one has to think about what ‘Savilisation’ means. Could it be that the deliberate vilification of a man now dead was seen as the thin end of the wedge to prepare public opinion for a series of show trials on historical charges of individuals unpopular with the New Puritans and thus the truth of the allegations was always immaterial.

The soap opera actor who boasted of sex with a thousand women, the soap opera actor who is an alcoholic and chain smoker, the oleaginous publicity agent, the homosexual parliamentarian, the radio disk jockey with wandering hands, and now the biggest bogeyman of all, the Sinn Fein boss who has always seemed to have a kind of diplomatic immunity?

Perhaps the aim has never been to get convictions per se, but simply to bankrupt the defendants. In the last case mentioned, I realise that it is unlikely that the prosecution has revealed the details of its entire case to the Daily Mail, but it seems unlikely that they have the kind of evidence usually needed to tie charges of murder onto a defendant–but if the prosecution doesn’t care about that, then there could be no limit to the future trials of public enemies on the flimsiest charges. Perhaps that is what Savilisation is all about and perhaps this softening up process partially explains why the BBC has rolled over so readily instead of vigorously defending its own performers and its own management practices.

I was just remembering the quote from one of the Duncroft 70s women, i.e. ‘guess who’s coming to tea?’ and mentioned the initial JS. That seems to corroborate Susan’s first visit, doesn’t it? I believe it was “Fran” who informed her social worker of this upcoming event. Tea it was, in a cup with a saucer, then!

One of the most fascinating things for me about Susan’s account is seeing the origins of some of the things that have been said. It is important to remember that her account concerns 1973/74. The girls who went to Surrey police were some 5 years later…..

No, but I got to be the tea-trolley girl for the staff tea at 4:30 or so. Learned a neat little trick of setting four cups together in a cluster on top of the saucers and rattled on down the corridors every afternoon. I think we girls had mugs, china though, but no saucers. Certainly real cutlery, not plastic, which is what I understand was de riguer by 1972ish.

“Fran” was at Duncroft with Susan, as were some of the others who are protected by law from having their real identities revealed in public.